3 responsible for the violation of Article 11 (Right to Privacy [Honor and Dignity]) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, and of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “the Convention of Belém do Pará”), to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. Lastly, it considered that the State had failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter also “the Convention Against Torture”). Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to make certain reparations. 4. On August 18, 2009, the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco/Me´phaa4, [Organization of Tlapaneco/Me’phaa Indigenous People], the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” A.C., [Center for Human Rights of the Tlachinollan Mountain A.C. (Tlachinollan)], and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the representatives”), forwarded their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives concurred, substantially, with the violations alleged by the InterAmerican Commission but added the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legislative measures (Article 2 of the Convention), as well as the alleged violation of the rights to freedom of association and to equal protection of the law (Articles 16 and 24 of the Convention, respectively). Lastly, they asked that the Court order the State to adopt various measures of reparation, as well as certain costs and expenses. 5. On December 13, 2009, the State presented a brief in which it filed a preliminary objection, answered the application, and made observations on the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “response to the application”). Mexico asked the Court to consider the preliminary objection as founded and to declare its “lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae” to determine violations of the Convention of Belém do Pará. It also asked the Court to declare the inexistence of the violations of the rights established by the American Convention or other inter-american instrument alleged by the Commission and the representatives, and as a consequence, that the claims regarding reparations be rejected. The state designated Zadalinda González and Reynero as Agent. 6. On March 3, 2010, the Commission and the representatives presented their arguments on the preliminary objection filed by the State, in accordance with Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The Commission’s application was notified to the representatives and to the State on June 18 and 19, 2009, respectively.5 During the proceedings before this 4 The parties use the terms me’paa or me’phaa alternatively to refer to the community or the language of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. The Court observes that there are distinct linguistic variants of Tlapaneco that in Spanish are written in distinct ways depending on the geographical location of the community in question. According to the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas del Estado [National Institute of Indigenous Languages of the State], the variant which corresponds to Barranca Tecoani is “me’paa” (http://www.inali.gob.mx/clin-inali/html/v_tlapaneco.html#4). Nevertheless, the Court uses the two abovementioned forms in an indistinct manner, in conformity with that used by the parties throughout the case at hand. 5 On July 30, 2009, following an extension granted by the Court, the State appointed Alejandro Carlos Espinosa as Judge Ad hoc.